FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY A. JONES, No. 13-15690
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03206-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAHOTA, Doctor, Chief Physician; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Henry A. Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his health and safety. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and
we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s medical
deliberate indifference claims because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his chronic
insomnia. See id. at 1057-58, 1060 (deliberate indifference is a high legal
standard; mistakes, negligence, or malpractice by medical professionals are not
sufficient to constitute deliberate indifference, nor is an inmate’s difference of
opinion with the physician regarding the appropriate course of treatment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jones’s deliberate
indifference to safety claim against Vanderostyne because Jones failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Vanderostyne knew of and
disregarded an excessive risk to Jones’s safety when she denied Jones’s request to
be single celled. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (claim of
deliberate indifference requires showing that “the official [knew] of and
disregard[ed] an excessive risk to inmate . . . safety”).
We reject Jones’s contentions concerning discovery because the record
shows that Jones received notice of his right to conduct discovery, as well as his
rights and obligations in responding to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
2 13-15690
We treat Jones’s letter received on January 31, 2014, as a request to file a
late repy brief, and grant the request. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted
on November 12, 2013.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15690